What really happened ....11 september

Bit:
>still doesnt mean cops say green kills u...that still
>remains utter bs

Never said they said it kills you. Better retrace. Seems your reading skills are the thing that is utter BS.

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

Bit:
>still doesnt mean cops say green kills u...that still
>remains utter bs

Never said they said it kills you. Better retrace. Seems your reading skills are the thing that is utter BS.

JB
More...

first, kill or end the life as u know it; either way it is still bs.

second this argument is pointless, if u think they lied to move u, that's your right, i dont buy that [away just from wtc7? why?].
 
Quote from Turok:



Every video I've seen of a explosively demoed building shows squibs going off in a very regular and organized fashion. It would certainly make sense with the massive structure of the WTC towers that these squibs would need to be regularly placed around the outside columns at regular intervals. All the video that you guys tout show an incredibly RANDOM and infrequent pattern to the event. To me, I say it doesn't look ANYTHING like building demolition by explosive just for this one reason.

Comments?

JB
More...

I agree that the so-called "squibs" are randon in nature.

I guess that is how they used them for demolition in 2001...:p
 
Quote from Turok:

Mav:
>What are the odds that air pressure would only
>affect a few select lower floors while bypassing
>every one of the 20 or so floors in between

The odds are high when considering the following:

A: Perhaps the air pressure "bypassed" certain floor due to doors/vents/penetrations being closed/restricted/unevenly sized(probability high in my given scenario).

B: Perhaps all doors were open and all floors pressurized evenly (probability low in my given scenario) and YET, there were a small percentage of the windows that were overtempered/installed improperly/previously damaged. (probability high). Once again, the glass would only blow where it exceeds the manufactured limits or damaged glass limits.

>given (a) the countless descriptions of explosions
>from people both inside and outside the building

A: Just because it sounds like an explosion doesn't mean it is. There were lots of things going inside as those towers burned that could have made very loud noises and shook things up.

B: Just because there is an actual explosion doesn't mean it's planted explosives. For example, debris falling through atrium glass can sound and fell like an explosion.

>and (b) the projectiles uncanny resemblance to squibs
>in a typical demolition

A: Do you know what tempered glass exploding due to overcoming pressure looks like? perhaps those projections bear an uncanny resemblance to that as well?


As a note and question back to you Mav...

(Background: While not an expert, I have just one bit of experience in the "building implosion" business. While working for the engineering firm CH2M Hill , I was project manager(1996) of a new facility in Idaho where we had to remove a large industrial plant structure (375ft) to make way for the new one. Due to the proximity to other buildings (the usual reason), we chose implosion as the method and the Loizeaux family as the contractor. It was fun to watch the process from close up is all I can say)

Every video I've seen of a explosively demoed building shows squibs going off in a very regular and organized fashion. It would certainly make sense with the massive structure of the WTC towers that these squibs would need to be regularly placed around the outside columns at regular intervals. All the video that you guys tout show an incredibly RANDOM and infrequent pattern to the event. To me, I say it doesn't look ANYTHING like building demolition by explosive just for this one reason.

Comments?

JB
More...

1. Your arguments are plausible re the squib refutation. Yet, in the absence of a controlled experiment to recreate the conditions that existed in the towers on 9/11 (virtual impossibility), I would prefer the simpler explanation, by occam's razor. Your conjecture that pressure "bypassed" certain floors or that some windows were improperly installed introduces many more assumptions into the explanation than the simple observation that the phenomenon occuring on the lower levels is almost if not purely identical to a demoltion squib.

2. Re the explosions. Of course, somebody saying I heard an explosion does not imply that it was a bomb explosion. What bothers me however, is at least two witnesses who came forward to report bomb-like explosions going off BEFORE and AFTER the plane crashes in the LOWER sub levels of the towers. One of these witnesses is William Rodriguez and the other is the testimony of the New York construction worker on the 9/11 mysteries video. One could also add the multitude reports of other witnesses hearing explosions, but I will play by your rules and assume that New Yorkers are dumb folk who can't tell a bomb from a chandelier crashing to the ground.

3. Your one time experience with a demolition should be a nice thing to have in mind. Good for you. However, if I understood the commentary on the steel structure of the towers, there was reinforced steel at certain levels in the towers, not all, and it would not have required explosives on all levels to bring it down, once the top had been cracked by the planes. That is classic demolition, blow the basement and key levels and crack the top to 'top it off'.

4. You say that the collapse of the tower doesn't look anything like a demolition? By George, the things collapsed in under 10 seconds no? How can it be that no other building has collapsed due to a fire in the history of civilization and yet this one 'pancakes' at a speed of near free fall? Wouldn't your argument and the official version of what happened (jet fuel combined with material inside building caused structural weakness and collapse) be more plausible if the building's collapse had taken longer to materialize? To me, the speed at which the buildings came down should be a major red flag.

Before I turn the floor back to you Turok, please also answer me on this disturbing fact:

Why was there a major power down in the towers only days before the attacks? That came across as extremely odd to Scott Forbes, a british database software engineer who was on duty for his investment bank on those days. Scott brought his concerns to the government and 9/11 commission, and was completely ignored. A power down means no security/surveillance. Scott also reported on weird activity going on the 34th floor shortly before the attacks, what sounded like drilling/hammering/banging stuff around that left dust all over. Sounds strange doesn't it?

Check this out when you have some time:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
 
the guy presiding the commission was the same fella that was upset by the condi's draft about american future direction and himself introduced that pre-emptive strikes will be the only way forward. all this well before 911.

and shall i remember u that the patriot act was laying on the president and vice-pres desks months before 911?


Quote from Avid_Consumer:

the 911 commission was chaired by a bush appointee and only after stiff resistance from the whitehouse. even once bush consented to an investigation at all, he would only testify without an oath, without a formal record of the testimony, and only simultaneously with cheney in lock step. as if sovereign immunity wasn't enough of a barrier from the consequences of scrutiny!

what does your common sense say, even in the absence of pnac agenda, family business conflicts of interest, pipeline contracts, pre-motivated plans for iraq, stifled whistleblowers, ignored intellgence, multiple instances of destroyed evidence, et al

i never knew he actually happened to have the director of the whitehouse situation room with him at booker elementary that morning

common sense can only be sliced so thin, and we all remember being introduced to the skin of his teeth in the 2000 election.
More...
 
Quote from Maverick1:


How can it be that no other building has collapsed due to a fire in the history of civilization and yet this one 'pancakes' at a speed of near free fall?

Scott also reported on weird activity going on the 34th floor shortly before the attacks, what sounded like drilling/hammering/banging stuff around that left dust all over.

More...

1 - Can you please show us a building that has been hit by a 767
where the building did not collapse? Maybe a really tall, thin building?

2- Can you even fathom that any type of construction could of been
going on anywhere in the towers?

3- Can you show us an example of the dust that was "left all over"?

4- Can you show us any reports or anything else on this "dust"? Was
this "dust" investigated and by whom? And if not, why not?

5- Can you fathom that dust from construction could of gotten into
the air ducts and went to other floors? Of couse you can. Because
you already believe that this "dust" was "left all over".

6- How many witnesses reported this dust?

7- How many other witnesses besides William Rodriguez and the
construction worker reported these "explosions"? And why didn't they
get interviewed in the 9/11 Mysteries video?

8- Pretty convincing bringing up the "dumb" New Yorkers bit...

9- Am I the only one who sees many floors at the top of tower 1 or
2 (can't remember which one it was at the moment)
come down all at once at an angle? Do you think it had a lot of
weight that could of blown down through the floors creating lots
of air pressure?

10- How many more "witnesses" reported the power down besides
Scott Forbes? Did Scott see the "weird" activity on the 34th floor?
Did he take any pictures? Did anyone else see or hear this activity?

11- Was this "power down" the first, one and only "power down"
in the history of the WTC?

Yes, everything sounds strange that you have mentioned. But only
if you hear it from the angle of a conspiracy theorist .:p

BTW... Everyone in this thead is being watched by the US government.

Your phone calls are bugged, everything you do on your computer
is being spyed on, and your very life is in danger.

Be careful, the US Government is out to get you.
 
Quote from Bitstream:

the guy presiding the commission was the same fella that was upset by the condi's draft about american future direction and himself introduced that pre-emptive strikes will be the only way forward. all this well before 911.

and shall i remember u that the patriot act was laying on the president and vice-pres desks months before 911?
More...

I didn't know any of that, thanks. In fact, reading more about Zelikow, it looks like he was a bit of a bush family insider/expert on the reprocussions and effects of a (at that time hypothetical) successful world trade center attack and lo and behold actually predicted 911 and it's reprocussions with astonishing accuracy in a 1998 article. If I didn't know better, I'd say his area of expertise prior to the commission, which in his words was "public myths" ... strikes me as a significantly biased orientation for someone staffing and heading what was supposed to be an objective investigative body, not one predisposed and preordained for public myth prevention and management.

from wiki:
Philip Zelikow has co-authored many books. He wrote a book with Ernest May on The Kennedy Tapes, and another with Joseph Nye and David C. King on Why People Don’t Trust Government. He wrote Germany Unified and Europe Transformed with Condoleezza Rice.

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”

Philip Zelikow served on President Bush's transition team in 2000-2001.
 
Quote from ratboy88:

if this video has not been altered.. then i dont see how anyone can deny the existence of explosions. i am open to debate on authenticity.
More...
air pressure pushin air down and out by breaking
windows does not seem to be super nonsense to me.
sorry, just saw this was already discussed in length.
 
Quote from Turok:

What you have is a clip ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8pheNcjVZc&mode=related&search=

Which states (verbatim):

"I remember getting a call from the uh Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said "you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is -- is pull it. Uh, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."
More...
i find it sounds somehow strange and i would say the
way the whole sentence sounds is like he cannot have
meant the men.
nevertheless, the conspiracy claim here sounds very
unlikely to me. i mean, the guy does not at all look like
someone who just did one of the biggest crimes in
human history. and even if he was such a cool guy,
why the hell should it happen to him that he talks
about "pulling" a building when to hide this must have
been his one and only concern that day. so: either he
was a very cool conspiracyMember, then such mistake
is nonsense, or he made the mistake because he was
so nervous, then why doesn't he look like nervous at
all.

thing could be that it looked like "pulling" to him as it
does to the conspiracy investigators - though it was
none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top